This economic situation has got more to do with discretionary expenditure. The cost of energy and food increased dramatically over a short period leaving few people time to change thier circumstances. Interest payments also increased over a number of years and people moving from fixed rate deals to tracker mortgages exacerbated the issue. The poorest communities, some on 100%+ mortgages were forced to default, as their outgoings increased too quickly.

How does that differ in meaning from what I wrote? Is the "has" in italics some kind of tacit agreement? You appear to have largely précised my comment.

Sorry. I was in agreement - I thought i would expand on your argument. Didn't mean to detract.

No problem. Obviously I also agree with what you have written.

It would be great if credit card banks published meaningful statistics so that it is possible to see if their was a run-up in debt that ran parallel to the run-up in oil price. This would indicate that in general people were hoping to use credit as a buffer whilst waiting for a 'return' to normal. If main-stream-media at the time was also only able to chant a mantra of "recovery and return to normal", then this would have made the case worse.

Alas, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, that is supposed to regulate the credit card banks and represent the interests of the people, has failed miserably since the beginning. In my dreams the credit card bank statistics would include details of the number of people subject to hikes in interest rates, actual interest charges and late fees etc.

My suspicion is that the banks, by screwing the public, effectively also screwed themselves. The claims by the USA Administration that the banks need to be protected from failure to protect the public have got it backwards - the public was already hurting long before the banks started to hurt. I say let the banks fail and crucify the banksters.

I googled for some graphs and these caught my eye:

National Debt

Total Debt

The run up in oil price occurred around 2004. The first graph shows the upturn more effectively.

I dont think that the OCC would have had much choice regarding regulatory measures. It is interesting to note that real gdp has been falling since 2004. Less development surely means a greater need for debt. I agree though, the banks do deserve to fail. However, any government intervention, whether it helps the bankers or the public, encourages the expansion of credit. I personally think that eventually the entire financial framework will have to be reinvented. When growth becomes impossible, debt becomes meaningless.

Largely agreed, except:

I dont think that the OCC would have had much choice regarding regulatory measures.

They could be forgiven if they had actually publicly tried to do anything. For example, they could have attempted an injunction preventing credit card banks hiking interest rates to 30% on the basis of information from third parties that should have been confidential - e.g. miss a utility bill, up goes the credit card interest rate. Obviously the credit card banks probably have it in the small print of the contract that they can do this. One has to wonder though, why the utility companies might be so willing and ready to help screw their own customers and not for their own profit.